I'm on strike

[roadman]

while there may be fewer cashiers needed in the long run, many other jobs were CREATED due to the businesses set up to develop and build those scanners.

Note that I am not against automation...

How many fewer cashiers ended up being needed?  How many jobs were created to develop and build the scanners?  I'd suggest that the first number is much, much larger than the second.

The argument is also an "apples to oranges" one.  Hiring cashiers and other workers directly benefits the local communities around the store, while developing and building the scanner technology doesn't.

[hbelkins]

She told me (while my BULLSHIT!! alarms are going off in my head), "The kiosks will allow our employees to walk the floor and mingle with the customers."

Or maybe they'll wipe up the spilled ketchup on the tables and mop the spilled drinks up from the floor more often.

[vdeane]

The argument is also an "apples to oranges" one.  Hiring cashiers and other workers directly benefits the local communities around the store, while developing and building the scanner technology doesn't.

Not to mention that cashiers likely don't have the skills needed to develop/build the scanner technology.

She told me (while my BULLSHIT!! alarms are going off in my head), "The kiosks will allow our employees to walk the floor and mingle with the customers."

Or maybe they'll wipe up the spilled ketchup on the tables and mop the spilled drinks up from the floor more often.

I read that they plan to start delivering food directly to tables like many Panera Bread locations.

[1995hoo]

The only McDonald's I've visited with the touchscreen (last December in Emporia en route to Florida for Christmas) had the table service vdeane describes.

[MNHighwayMan]

She told me (while my BULLSHIT!! alarms are going off in my head), "The kiosks will allow our employees to walk the floor and mingle with the customers."

As those alarms rightly should be. Fuck that noise.

Seems like the employees were fed a line or two of bullshit that they either believed, or were told to say in the event a customer should ask.

[ce929wax]

Regarding Mickey D's, the only thing I might go there for is their dollar drinks or if I happen to be up in the morning, a sausage biscuit.  Other than that, I hate the place and don't eat there.

[vdeane]

The only McDonald's I've visited with the touchscreen (last December in Emporia en route to Florida for Christmas) had the table service vdeane describes.

I had some more thoughts on this.  Reducing the number of cashiers would make for longer lines, and eliminating them requires the upfront investment of the kiosks.  But reducing the number of staff walking the floor is unlikely to be noticed outside of peak times, and eliminating table service requires only going back to the current pickup system - no investment needed.  So even if McDonalds doesn't eliminate any jobs due to the kiosks, they're putting themselves in a situation where reducing/eliminating jobs will be easier.

Incidentally, why someone would want table service at a McDonalds is beyond me.  I wouldn't be surprised if it's mainly for PR reasons so they can expend the jobs over time rather than all at once, possibly via attrition instead of layoffs.

[rickmastfan67]

Incidentally, why someone would want table service at a McDonalds is beyond me.

Maybe somebody walking on crutches?

[SectorZ]

Incidentally, why someone would want table service at a McDonalds is beyond me.

Why someone wants food at McDonalds is beyond me. I am by no means a food snob but their stuff is gross. Literally every fast food restaurant has better food, except at this point Subway because they've just given up in maintaining any food quality.

[Verlanka]

Incidentally, why someone would want table service at a McDonalds is beyond me.

Why someone wants food at McDonalds is beyond me.

Maybe they want food so they could actually have lunch.

[1995hoo]

....

Incidentally, why someone would want table service at a McDonalds is beyond me.  I wouldn't be surprised if it's mainly for PR reasons so they can expend the jobs over time rather than all at once, possibly via attrition instead of layoffs.

Perhaps–and this is solely speculation–part of the motivation might be crowd control during busy times. Recall McDonald's used to use the system where you ordered and the same cashier who took your order got your food and gave it to you at the register before the next person ordered. That worked pretty well with a short menu on which most items were ready most of the time, but it hasn't worked as well for a long time now and it backed up the customer line. The switch to giving you an order number and then having one employee as the expediter who calls out numbers and hands you your order at the end of the counter addresses the problem of ordering inefficiency but, during busy periods, leads to a lot of customers milling around getting in each other's way waiting for their numbers to be called. (Side note: I have never understood why some people will get their numbers and then stand right at the counter waiting, as if nobody else were waiting, instead of standing back like normal people so that other people who ordered first can get their food when their numbers are called. This is hardly unique to McDonald's, of course. Getting in everyone else's way won't get your number called sooner!)

I've also noted that the choice of employee to act as the expediter can be very important–if the employee doesn't have a loud voice, or doesn't know how to project one's voice, or doesn't speak English very well when calling numbers, the process tends to break down because customers don't promptly respond to pick up their orders while other orders are brought to the counter and start piling up. The table service moves people out of the way and disperses the crowd while also eliminating the need to call numbers.

I don't really have any opinion on whether the new system works any better than the old because the only time I've eaten at McDonald's in the past several months, and the only time I've encountered the new system, was the visit mentioned in my prior post when we stopped in Emporia a few days before Christmas (a breakfast stop between two and three hours after leaving home). I would have preferred something else, but McDonald's was convenient. I have noticed the McDonald's closest to home is undergoing heavy renovation right now and is closed except for the drive-thru (which I won't use unless I only want a drink). They're getting rid of the longstanding familiar roofline for a modern-looking exterior. Don't know if they'll implement the touchscreen ordering inside.

[kalvado]

Incidentally, why someone would want table service at a McDonalds is beyond me.

Why someone wants food at McDonalds is beyond me. I am by no means a food snob but their stuff is gross. Literally every fast food restaurant has better food, except at this point Subway because they've just given up in maintaining any food quality.

There are plenty of situations when McD food is better than most other options. Try Niagara Falls, US side. Once you look at all options, you really wish something like McDonalds is there.
Combination of speed, price and consistent - abeit not very high - quality is often a winner. Another example where McD is the best option is Minneapolis airport (personal experience as of last fall):
full service restaurant may be great, but is a no-go if you  have 40 minutes connection for the last bank. Waiting 15 minutes for a great deli sandwich (actuall number I saw during same connection) is also problematic. Table service at McD was highly appreciated as standing with 2 bags at pickup area blocks traffic, and you need more than 2 hands to haul 2 bags, baper bag with a sandwich, soda and napkins at the same time.

[Rothman]

I have never found McDonald's to be the best option.

[US71]

Incidentally, why someone would want table service at a McDonalds is beyond me.

Maybe somebody walking on crutches?

[formulanone]

I have never found McDonald's to be the best option.

A nationwide network of free and easy-to-find restrooms, sans paper towels.

[Rothman]

I have never found McDonald's to be the best option.

A nationwide network of free and easy-to-find restrooms, sans paper towels.

Ha.  You got me.  I was myopically considering dining options.

[oscar]

I have never found McDonald's to be the best option.

A nationwide network of free and easy-to-find restrooms, sans paper towels.

Some of which are locked and restricted to customers, so not really "free". Especially in big cities, and high-crime areas.

[formulanone]

I have never found McDonald's to be the best option.

A nationwide network of free and easy-to-find restrooms, sans paper towels.

Some of which are locked and restricted to customers, so not really "free". Especially in big cities, and high-crime areas.

But that would also include every restaurant and shop in the area, so it's not exclusive issue to them.

(or just wait and prop your foot in the door of a pay-restroom)

On the company's dime, I usually try to buy something, even if just a bottle of water or granola bar at an establishment.

Slightly on topic, I usually find that most supermarkets will also accommodate. In the case of a former employer, I feel no need to buy anything unless I want to.

[US71]

I have never found McDonald's to be the best option.

A nationwide network of free and easy-to-find restrooms, sans paper towels.

Most have gone to electric hand dryers, anyway.

[michravera]

There is another problem with wages: As an example, minimum wage in Massachusetts was $11 per hour last year and is $12 per hour this year. Someone making $11.55 last year (which requires working for 2 years) would only be bumped up to $12 starting in January, not $12.55, meaning that those working longer are not getting more money.

This has always been an issue with a rising Minimum Wage.  I remember when I first started working I was making above minimum wage, but when the minimum wage went above what I was making, my raise only bumped up to the new minimum wage.

In everyone's fight for $15 an hour, there's a much larger issue looming.  Let's say the minimum wage is now $10 an hour.  If the wage immediately bumped up to $15/hour, that's great for everyone working at $10 an hour. But what about those working $11 - $14 an hour?  Do they get an equal $5 bump?  And if they do, what about everyone working $16 - $19 an hour?  You can raise someone making $12/hr to $17/hr without bumping up the guy making $16 an hour already.

It's a tricky slope...one that companies have met with simply doing away with jobs. 

Now, to be clear - this doesn't appear to be the issue at hand here...I'm just pointing out the larger issue with a rising minimum wage.

The thing to realize is that those people making $40 per hour are generally worth what they are getting paid to their company or their job wouldn't exist and the people making $10 per hour are NOT all worth what they are getting paid. This means that some make only the $10 per hour because others aren't worth the $10 per hour. It is very tempting in an era of higher minimum wages to automate, keep good employees at lower wages, and eliminate all of the positions for the lower wage workers.

In some industries, some shops unionize and it helps the workers. In other shops in the same industry it hurts them big time. If one solution worked for everything and everybody, the cheddar vs jack argument would have been settled long ago.

[Rothman]

I don't see how labor can ever compete with automation.  I think of the old days where your computer was a roomful of clerks with slide rules, for example.

My gut reaction is that unionization can't stand in the way of innovation and automation.  Although I am all for workers being unionized when their jobs are necessary, when their jobs are modernized and mechanically automated, then jobs are a necessary casualty (I think of toll collectors).

If I were a manager, and a union dug in against automation, I'd do what every basic economics class says to do in that situation:  Close up shop, since my expenses exceeded my ability to compete.  Wait a bit and reopen.

That all said, if automation really starts to take over, it does make the argument for a guaranteed basic income more and more feasible.

[J N Winkler]

I probably would have just left the twelfth bag in the cart without scanning it. As long as the final receipt says twelve bags and I have twelve bags, there's not really much to be gained by having the extra bag voided, and it would be obvious I wasn't stealing anything should I be confronted on the matter.

I do recognize that as an option.  For me it was simpler to start the transaction over at a different terminal so I could be seen to scan every item I paid for.  If I had opted to skip one unit of soup to compensate for the unit that scanned twice, I would have had to think about how to slip it into the bag without looking like I was shoplifting or otherwise triggering (possibly automated) loss prevention measures.  I don't have a problem presenting my receipt and purchases for inspection on exit, but if I am summoned from behind my back, I am not going to hear it and will therefore keep on walking, looking more and more like a thief.

I had a similar issue with the security gate at our old main library.  (The current library, which opened in June 2018, does not have gates.)  The technology was based on magnetic permeability, and was not especially reliable.  Often books would fail to demag successfully and would set the gate off; to make matters worse, not all items had magnetic tags, and sometimes items that did were not demagged before being sent out to branches to fill holds (only some branches had security gates).  One time I walked out the gate with a book that set it off and got almost all the way to the parking lot (a walk of about half a block) before I saw a strange expression on the face of someone walking in the other direction.  He was reacting to the security guard and a (very pregnant) library clerk in full pursuit.

The security gates were far too old to have been fitted with visual indications for ADA accessibility, so I eventually had to finesse the situation by running a sound analyzer on my phone to detect when the gate chimed.  This was after I tried the easier approach of eyeballing the clerks behind the desk to see if they reacted to a sound when I walked through the gate; I discovered that they tend to ignore chimes produced by people walking into the library, only to drop into a sprinter's crouch when a person walks out.

The thing to realize is that those people making $40 per hour are generally worth what they are getting paid to their company or their job wouldn't exist and the people making $10 per hour are NOT all worth what they are getting paid. This means that some make only the $10 per hour because others aren't worth the $10 per hour. It is very tempting in an era of higher minimum wages to automate, keep good employees at lower wages, and eliminate all of the positions for the lower wage workers.

The stylized justification for a minimum wage is to guarantee workers the ability to make a living by preventing employers from exploiting their monopsony power over unskilled labor.  The movement for a higher minimum wage (especially in high-cost states and metropolitan areas) is about the fact that the current federal minimum wage is much further away from being an actual living wage than it was in the late 1960's/early 1970's.  It is not really intended to address the fact that a higher wage bill does incentivize employers to transition from more labor-intensive to more capital-intensive ways of producing the same basket of final goods and services.

Wages paid are indeed more likely to reflect an underlying market valuation for, say, the $40/hour crowd than the minimum-wage crowd, simply because there is always more competition for unskilled jobs.  The $40/hour folks have typically invested in education and skill development to give themselves extra wage bargaining power.

Moreover, as technology improves and business processes evolve, capital becomes more readily substitutable for labor.  The advocates of a higher minimum wage are, of course, correct when they say that higher wages do not necessarily result in higher prices for the consumer, but the movement is so recent that the price data almost inevitably reflects short-term conditions.  The effect of capital-for-labor substitution is later seen in jobs that simply vanish.

I don't see how labor can ever compete with automation.  I think of the old days where your computer was a roomful of clerks with slide rules, for example.

My gut reaction is that unionization can't stand in the way of innovation and automation.  Although I am all for workers being unionized when their jobs are necessary, when their jobs are modernized and mechanically automated, then jobs are a necessary casualty (I think of toll collectors).

I think defiance of automation is a losing position for an union to take, not just because of the underlying economics (the historical evidence suggests that resort to capital-intensive processes generally increases total factor productivity), but also from a dignity-of-labor vantage point.  I think that except in certain niche or boutique settings, doing by hand what a machine can do faster and better subtracts something intangible but still valuable from the worker's humanity.  A case in point is outsourcing coupon processing to underpaid workers in Mexico to save spending the up-front capital cost of equipment for the same purpose at an US-based office (something that actually used to happen in the 1980's).

That all said, if automation really starts to take over, it does make the argument for a guaranteed basic income more and more feasible.

We already have the likes of Elon Musk saying that 30% of all current jobs will disappear to automation.  This may very well be a net loss (in other words, the jobs that go away will only be partly replaced by new jobs that involve variants of machine tending).  I find the concept of UBI interesting, but we in the US have a far stronger pew-renter mentality than Canada and the western European countries, so I would expect a proposal to introduce UBI to collide forcefully with that.  In its own way it is very erosive of human dignity to draw one's living from subsidy payments, so I think some version of UBI makes the most sense in a social context that stimulates a sense of productive occupation in recipients.

[hotdogPi]

The strike is over. As it's already 7:21 PM here, stores will be opening tomorrow.

[Rothman]

Victory or no?

[hotdogPi]

Victory or no?

Yes!